Churches obligated to defend principles, Bishop Wester says

Casey SeeFLOWER MOUND, TXThose who argue that that requiring
organizations to provide birth control and abortion services through their
insurance in the name of equality and or preventing discrimination miss what I
believe is an important fact. Why should tax payers or organizations be forced
to pay money to fund services that would allow someone to conveniently remove
the consequences of their actions?

....... Only a man, a White man,
would write that. Leaving aside whether imposing our morals and our judgements
on others is OK with Jesus, let us just be practical. Unwanted pregnancies cost
society a lot of money for medical care, schooling, prisons, and lost work time
of the mothers. Employers save maternity leave time and expense, and get better
attendance when women do not have surprise children.

Morevover, you
blame the WOMAN for getting pregnant. Suppose she is married -- do you support
her refusing her husband for fear of pregnancy?

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

Nov. 23, 2013 9:50 a.m.

@Casey See:

"What I am saying is that we, the tax payers or
businesses, shouldn't have to pay for programs that in essence says that
people are not accountable for their actions."

Then, as I said
earlier, make the families of missionaries "accountable for their
actions" of sending their sons/daughters out there to preach by REMOVING the
tax deduction (which foists some of the expense onto other taxpayers).

"Those that have abortions, many have deep psychological issues of guilt
afterwards." -- Some, possibly, others, not so much (I know a few women who
have had abortions and none of them feel guilt afterwards).

If you
require young men to marry the girls they get pregnant, you often create
unstable marriages; especially when they don't love the girl. Allowing
abortion protects society, as there will be fewer unwanted children being raised
in unstable homes.

A ScientistProvo, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 8:51 p.m.

Red wings wrote:

"As a recovering sex addict, I applaud all
efforts to eliminate pornography and indecency from open society. If you want to
indulge in those things, do it in private. I do not need it shoved in my face
via TV, movies, advertisements, internet pop-ups, billboards, etc., and neither
do my kids..."

As a recovering believer, That is the same thing
many of us have said about religion! Keep your religion to yourself and we will
support keeping pornography out of the public square - to my way of thinking,
both are equally offensive and harmful to society.

Casey SeeFLOWER MOUND, TX

Nov. 22, 2013 7:36 p.m.

If I may reply to Ranch and Intervention and explain my views a little more. I
am not advocating that individuals have to abstain from sex before marriage.
What I am saying is that we, the tax payers or businesses, shouldn't have
to pay for programs that in essence says that people are not accountable for
their actions.

Today, we pay women to have children outside of
wedlock and the man has no consequences for his actions. Instead, we should be
requiring that both the man and the woman be accountable for conceiving a child.
Instead, we say we will pay for an abortion or pay the woman to have the child.
Then we wonder why children grow up seeing members of the opposite sex as
objects to satisfy a physical urge. Children grow up in single parent, normally
single mother, homes. The boys learn that they don't have any obligations,
the girls, that if they don't want to work, have babies.

Those
that have abortions, many have deep psychological issues of guilt afterwards.
These are the consequences of todays social policies and mores. Sorry, in my
estimation, taxes shouldn't support these activities.

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 7:30 p.m.

RedWings says:

"Ranch -

Controlling sexual desires is
not the same as celibacy. It means keeping conversation and forms of
entertainment clean and not including inuendo or outright descriptions of sex
acts. It means having respect for yourself, your partner, and those around
you.

As a recovering sex addict, I applaud all efforts to eliminate
pornography and indecency from open society. If you want to indulge in those
things, do it in private. I do not need it shoved in my face via TV, movies,
advertisements, internet pop-ups, billboards, etc., and neither do my
kids....."

---

I'm confused then. How does a
LGBT couple not meet the requirements in your first paragraph? How does it
qualify for the second?

You equate homosexuality to sex addition and
pornography when, in fact, a loving, committed LGBT relationship is identical to
a loving, committed heterosexual relationship.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 3:59 p.m.

Ranch -

Controlling sexual desires is not the same as celibacy. It
means keeping conversation and forms of entertainment clean and not including
inuendo or outright descriptions of sex acts. It means having respect for
yourself, your partner, and those around you.

As a recovering sex
addict, I applaud all efforts to eliminate pornography and indecency from open
society. If you want to indulge in those things, do it in private. I do not
need it shoved in my face via TV, movies, advertisements, internet pop-ups,
billboards, etc., and neither do my kids.....

KMchenry, IL

Nov. 22, 2013 1:59 p.m.

Deacons can be married at the time of ordination.

Widows can enter
religious life. Religious life is a lifelong calling. It's more than a job.

Some are called to celibacy. Being married to Christ or to his
church is fulfilling for religious. How can being the spouse of Jesus be bad?
When you are married to another human and perhaps have children you are
distracted with your own life and responsibilities. Celibacy allows the work to
be done that can't by people with families.

There are churches
that support civil rights, gay marriage, the environment. They are like any
other nonprofit who not everyone and their brother may agree with. They have an
opinion on things.

Conception is when life begins. That is why the
position on birth control and abortion are what they are.

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 10:58 a.m.

Your God.

Not mine.

Know the difference before you
attempt to force your beliefs…

upon others.

cjbBountiful, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 9:42 a.m.

Re J-TX

Nuns are married to Jesus? This is a marriage that leaves
them unfulfilled. People need and are meant to have physical relations. A
relationship with God isn't enough for people. Men need women, women need
men. God visited with and conversed with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Yet God
recognized this relationship as not being enough. God said it is not Good that
man be alone, he then provided a woman for Adam so they could keep each other
company.

Florien WineriterCottonwood Heights, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 7:21 a.m.

All organizations have the right to express opinions and topractice their
principles within their organizations but I don't believe they have the
right to impose their beliefs and practices on the secular community. For
example the Jewish practice of circumsion, Chistian babtism, and religious
marriage ceremonies.

J-TXAllen, TX

Nov. 22, 2013 7:16 a.m.

Wilf 55: RE: Marriage - I can't speak to the priests in the Catholic
Church, but when Nuns take their vows, they believe they are married to Jesus
Christ.

RanchHere, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 6:24 a.m.

@Hemlock & RedWings;

Apparently the DN moderators won't let
me answer you honestly, even though the reply was civil, on topic and had
nothing offensive in it.

@Casey See;

Why should my tax
dollars go towards funding services that I disagree with; like the LDS
missionary program. The LDS take a tax deduction for the money sent to support
their broods on their missions which means that the rest of us have to subsidize
a program we disagree with. Oh, and as for "controlling sexual urges",
until you are willing to remain celibate forever, don't you dare require it
of anybody else.

cjbBountiful, UT

Nov. 22, 2013 1:45 a.m.

I agree with this article, though I didn't think I would.

What
no church has the right to do is to force its unique beliefs on people. These
include no birth control, no blood transfusions, no shopping on Sunday etc.

interventionslc, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 10:04 p.m.

@casey See

why should my tax dollars go to pay for anyone to do
anything I do not personally agree with or personally engage in? Oh thats right
it is part of being in a civil society were we decide that we will pay for these
things because it serves a greater social good. In the case of contraception we
as a society have an interest in advocating protection to protect the larger
community from communicable disease and the far higher cost of treating these
illness and dealing with the collateral fallout. We need look no further then
the long time failure to do so in Africa and the countless orphans left behind
that have to be cared for.

Casey SeeFLOWER MOUND, TX

Nov. 21, 2013 5:44 p.m.

Those who argue that that requiring organizations to provide birth control and
abortion services through their insurance in the name of equality and or
preventing discrimination miss what I believe is an important fact. Why should
tax payers or organizations be forced to pay money to fund services that would
allow someone to conveniently remove the consequences of their actions?

The idea that people should be accountable for their actions with regard to
procreative powers many say is discrimination. Instead those that espouse this
concept believe that procreative urges are so great that people cannot really
control themselves, or be expected to control themselves until marriage and
ready for children.

This is a very slippery slope. 50 - 60 years ago,
pregnancy out of wedlock was a shameful thing. Today it is celebrated or
aborted. No big deal. The young lady's long term mental well being is not
considered. Also the young man has lost all respect for women. Instead the
opposite sex is seen as an object to satisfy both of their immediate desires.

Today it is adultery, tomorrow another commandment will be thrown under
the bus of progress. Killing newborn babies as sacrifices? perhaps?

The ScientistProvo, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 1:37 p.m.

“The right to life and the dignity of the human person”

Death is a natural part of life; the right to life must come with the right to
die with dignity, to have the dignity and right to control your own body
(including reasonably terminating an unwanted pregnancy), and the dignity
afforded by advances in stem cell research.

“The paramount
importance of the family, including the view that marriage between one man and
one woman is ‘sacred’".

Nobody is arguing the
“sacredness” of marriage; rather, we are arguing the legal status of
marriage equality. We have long since moved past basing our legal system on
religious superstitions.

“we should be able to follow our
conscience.” – but not at the expense of other’s civil
rights.

“Options for the poor and vulnerable…those who
are marginalized, to unborn children, to victims of injustice and
oppression.”

Religion have exploited the poor and vulnerable
and oppressed others with civil injustice.

“Solidarity…
we are our brother’s keepers.” – unless you are not a believer
or are one of the “icky” sinners!

elliottpjTwo Rivers, WI

Nov. 21, 2013 1:09 p.m.

We are sadly living in a time where the public sphere is shrinking and our
fundamental religious liberty is threatened more than ever. Fortunately, the
Catholic Church is speaking with a strong and united voice to defend faith and
freedom, and carrying out the mission of Jesus to seek social justice.
It's an exciting time to be Catholic as Pope Francis is transforming the
church with a new evangelical zeal to edify the body of Christ.

J. S.Houston, TX

Nov. 21, 2013 12:38 p.m.

This bishop can speak all he wants. nobody, no government will stop him. but on
the other hand, nobody has the obligation to accept his idea, and public policy
does not need his approval.

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 12:37 p.m.

what exactly are the forcing you to do redwings? offer the same public
accommodations afforded to any other member of our society? Churches in the US
have always been shielded from having to make accommodations. Churches can still
deny to marry black or interracial couples if they so please. If they choose to
venture into the civil society and beyond their ecclesiastical duties they are
required to follow the same laws as anyone else in terms of public accommodation
laws.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 10:35 a.m.

Ranch - Jesus also made is clear that we must "deny" ourselves, take up
our cross and follow Him. The rich young ruler turned away from Christ because
he could not give up his worldly posessions. To deny oneself means to place
God's Will above our own. This is not a teaching that is popular today.

To love God, we must be obedient to His commandments. This includes the
Law of Chastity and the sanctity of the powers or procreation. Do you show love
for your parents by disobeying them?

God gave us the right to choose.
I do not agree with restricting anyone's ability to choose. But I reserve
that right for myself as well. If I choose to worship God, I should be able to
do that without discrimination as well.

HemlockSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 10:17 a.m.

@ranch"the right to choose how their body is used…." is fine
unless in involves another human, as in a viable fetus, or when it imposes a
burden on society. People who abuse themselves with drugs, obesity, smoking and
other "personal life styles" still demand that society take care of the
complications. Those who object to helmet laws are unaware that 63% of medical
expenses, according to the CDC, for those injured while not wearing a helmet are
borne by society in general. The biker motto "Let those who ride
decide," should be generalized to "Let those who pay have a say."

RanchHere, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 9:31 a.m.

Jesus gave you two core principles: (1) Love god, (2) love your fellow men and
treat them as you would be treated.

Discrimination does not meet this
principle.Denying others the right to choose how their body is used does
not meet this principle.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 9:19 a.m.

Hutterite - Can I use your statement to "pidgeon hole" organizations I
do not agree with? Since I believe that GLAAD, GLSEN, and other gay rights
groups are "self-aggrandizing" do I get to dismiss them as you have
religion? Gay rights groups are imposing their veneer over my individual
rights.

What makes your position right and mine wrong?

Say No to BOMapleton, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 9:09 a.m.

What? Nothing about amnesty?

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 9:05 a.m.

But the assertions and self proclaimed importance of the church are theirs
alone, of their manufacture, and we have every right in the larger public sphere
to pigeon hole it into the same place every other self aggrandizing organisation
that wants to impose their veneer over our individual rights.

TA1Alexandria, VA

Nov. 21, 2013 8:49 a.m.

Churches absolutely have their right to the public square, but only as churches,
not as far as "for profit" businesses owned by a church. "For
profit" church owned companies have to abide by the same rules as everyone
else.

Wilf 55SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Nov. 21, 2013 8:04 a.m.

If, as Bishop Wester says, "marriage between one man and one woman is sacred
and the fundamental unit of society", then why does the Catholic Church
forbid priests, monks, and nuns to marry?